Thomas Narten wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Thomas Narten wrote: >>>> Agreed. In my experience, the IANA does not want the I-D to contain a >>>> section entitled "IANA Considerations" if there are no actions required >>>> of the IANA. >>> Your experience does not match what IANA has stated numerous >>> times. Please see section 6.1 of >>> draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-07.txt, which contains >>> text that IANA has a large part in crafting. > >> By "my experience" I mean for example RFC 3922; during Auth48 or >> thereabouts I was told that the IANA didn't want the document to include >> an "IANA Considerations" section since there were no actions required of >> the IANA. But perhaps that was a miscommunication. > > To clarify, what happens during AUTH48 is mostly between you and the > RFC Editor. It's probably the RFC Editor that is calling for removal > of the empty IANA Considerations section. Going back the the very > first sentence quoted above, the specific question of what IANA wants > to see in an _ID_ is that they prefer a clear indication of what it is > they are supposed to do. An explicit "no IANA actions" statement in > the ID is preferred to "no mention of IANA at all", as the latter > increases the work for IANA to figure out what, if any, action it > has. Note that IANA typicall reviews documents during the Last Call > (or during the IESG Evaluation process), which happens prior to final > RFC editing. Thanks for the clarification. That seems like the right approach to me. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf